Author
Topic: propolis benifcial to hive? (Read 3813 times)

windfall

I will be a new beekeeper come spring. As I have been researching lately I have come across several studies indicating that the the propolis "varnish" in natural hives is likely beneficial to the hives occupants in terms of disease and possibly mite issues. I have also seen several anecdotal references in this forum to good hive health and strong propolizing (is that a word?) tendency in the bees.

Separately, as I research construction techniques for hives, I see many references to a greater tendency for the bees to propolize the interior when hives are built of roughsawn material. Usually this seems to be pointed out as a negative feature to the practice. Will they do this regardless of the material surface?

It leads me to the obvious question as to weather some people are intentionally using roughsawn in an effort to ENCOURAGE the varnishing of the interior by the bees? As a woodworker I realize there can be some drawbacks to working in roughsawn, such as cupped boards and varying thickness. But these can be overcome through selection of certain species (cedars) and/or cuts(quartersawn). Also a planed board can be readily "toothed" with a belt/disc sander and 30 grit run cross grain. Or for that matter thick seasoned boards can be resawn.

If so, are there considerations to be made with this strategy (encouraging propolis), such as increased tolerances...how thick are the bees laying this stuff down if you leave it alone? Or choosing strains of bees known for higher production of the material.

Marla Spivak has researched this and I've seen her presentation on the matter. Yes they will propolize rough sawm more. Yes, it contributes to preventing diseases and to having a healthy hive. Yes they will propolize the inside of the hive regardless, they just put more on if there is more surface area (rough sawn).

Here is a thread I posted 7 years ago on the subject. You will notice the second post at that time from MB and his indication of no research being done at that time.

This is another example of beekeepers who are looking into things that happen in the hive, yet lack the resources to research this stuff or have the desire to put thoughts on paper so others can give them all the accolades in the future.

Beekeepers have known about the benefits of propolis for years. Long before I started keeping bees. And it didn't take some paper or research to confirm the obvious.

One of the things that has always amazed me, is the number of times a conversation is seen on a bee forum, then several months later, you read about the very same stuff in a bee magazine. I swear that people cruise forums to come up with articles that they can then take credit for. And I see some grab all the glory by the mere fact they are in a position to do a research paper for something obvious that beekeepers knew all along.

Agreed. Dee Lusby had been feeding propolis patties to sick hives for years and writing about it for years before Marla decided to do her research. And Dee was just working off what beekeepers already knew. But it doesn't hurt my feelings to see someone give credence to something that deserves credence.

It reminds me of a science article I read about someone who did research on animals doctoring themselves. Something all people in all cultures have always know, but he did a research project on it and got published...

What amazes me is when we have 2 (or More) similar colonies (weight, general health, good stores etc.) and one will proplise every little nook and cranny, even attempting to glue down inner covers or closing tiny gaps, and the one right next door does half as much. Any thoughts?

Logged

"Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who say they've found it."

I heard a researcher last year also mention of using rough saw'ed lumber for propolis benefits inside the hive. You could of thought by the way they talked they were onto something of a breakthrough. That it was an original idea.

I would rather give credit to the beekeepers in the field that have known this, have talked about this, and used this idea, long before a researcher came along and supposedly earned "credence" on the matter.

No matter the subject matter, medications, what works and does not work, etc., beekeepers in the field almost always come up with the conclusion long before any researcher comes around and deserved "credence" by writing some paper.

What amazes me is when we have 2 (or More) similar colonies (weight, general health, good stores etc.) and one will proplise every little nook and cranny, even attempting to glue down inner covers or closing tiny gaps, and the one right next door does half as much. Any thoughts?

Contrary to popular belief by the smallcell crowd that hives should be equal in items such as mites (and I would assume propolis since the field bees carrying mites around are those probably collecting propolis also)....truth is you see many items with huge differences in one level or another. Actual mites counts, SHB numbers, propolis amounts, and many factors in the hive can be seen as drastic differences between hives. It comes down to genetics and selection.

While many beekeeper feel a queen is a queen is a queen (many package producers think this as they promote their wares).....eventually if you look long enough or close enough, there are major differences between strains and even within the same strains.

It may be hard to promote individual traits by the selection of one hive, as the variation of traits vary from generation to generation, it is possible to improve the overall pool of genetics by selecting towards one end of the spectrum or another, based on what you are selecting for.

Mite counts are different even between hives sitting next to each other (mite leveling...what a crock), and so are propolis levels, honey production, cleanliness, and other traits that bees carry.

If you want low propolis, then propagate those hives with little of the stuff. If you want propolis, then propagate those with plenty of the stuff.

Personally, I've said for at least ten years that the industry has made a huge mistake for the past 50-100 years in selecting low propolis traits in bees. And it didn't take CCD or a researcher to tell me that. ;)

Contrary to popular belief by the smallcell crowd that hives should be equal in items such as mites (and I would assume propolis since the field bees carrying mites around are those probably collecting propolis also)....truth is you see many items with huge differences in one level or another. Actual mites counts, SHB numbers, propolis amounts, and many factors in the hive can be seen as drastic differences between hives.

i guess i'm not surprised by this statement...i'd point out to anyone reading this that no one actually said "all hives should be equal in the number of mites"...or propolis, or brood, or SHB, or nosema levels, or stores.

bjorn has a habit of painting others with a broad brush of largely invented claims. watch what happens next.....he will claim he is too busy to look up all the times he was told this, that obviously it is what everyone is saying, and perhaps cite something from dennis murals (beewrangler's) web site that doesn't really support his claim (and although Dennis is certainly relevant and pokes his head out from time to time, he is hardly "part of the small cell crowd", certainly not a visible part), and probably tell us all that the term "mite leveling" means that all mites should be equal, not that it refers to the tendancy of mites to drift from colonies of high levels to colonies of lower levels to some extent.

has anyone (small cell or not) ever claimed to have totally equivalent hives in a yard?

"I started thinking, 'Wait, if propolis is so good for humans, it's got to also be good for bees,'" explains bee expert Marla Spivak, co-principal investigator in a new two-year project to identify the active compounds in honeybee propolis.

...and i started thinking, "hey, if milk is nutritious for humans, maybe it is nutritious for baby cows!" :shock:

Contrary to popular belief by the smallcell crowd that hives should be equal in items such as mites (and I would assume propolis since the field bees carrying mites around are those probably collecting propolis also)....truth is you see many items with huge differences in one level or another. Actual mites counts, SHB numbers, propolis amounts, and many factors in the hive can be seen as drastic differences between hives.

i guess i'm not surprised by this statement...i'd point out to anyone reading this that no one actually said "all hives should be equal in the number of mites"...or propolis, or brood, or SHB, or nosema levels, or stores.

bjorn has a habit of painting others with a broad brush of largely invented claims. watch what happens next.....he will claim he is too busy to look up all the times he was told this, that obviously it is what everyone is saying, and perhaps cite something from dennis murals (beewrangler's) web site that doesn't really support his claim (and although Dennis is certainly relevant and pokes his head out from time to time, he is hardly "part of the small cell crowd", certainly not a visible part), and probably tell us all that the term "mite leveling" means that all mites should be equal, not that it refers to the tendancy of mites to drift from colonies of high levels to colonies of lower levels to some extent.

has anyone (small cell or not) ever claimed to have totally equivalent hives in a yard?

deknow

Deknow,You like to antagonize beekeepers on the other forums as well as here. So I am surprised to hear that you seemingly act ignorant to the many conversation of "mite leveling" that have taken place over time.

Yes, the smallcell crowd will drag out the comments from Dennis. They seemed very popular at one time. They were taken as gospel.

Then Berry's study as well as two other research studies, came out with data that clearly questioned the claims of smallcell.

At first, it was suggested that J.B. was an idiot, then the research was flawed. Then concepts of mite leveling was made. That somehow mites within any yard would be transmitted at levels that would cause them all to be the same, or on a level that would make smallcell with equal mites. You may get bee drift, but not on the level claimed by the smallcell groupies who wanted to find a reason to discredit Berry's work. And that is what they tried to do.

Anybody actually doing mite counts within the same yard knows that you will get a whole range of mite counts based on the genetics and ability of individual hives. they do not "level" out as some suggested to slander the research that made them look like fools.

err...looking through that thread (rather quickly...but it helped that that "mite" and "leveling" were highlighted), there was only one reference to claim that "leveling" results in "equality":

Quote

Accepting the fact that mites transfer is one thing. I do agree. Just not on a level claimed here to suggest that side by side hive will maintain equal, or statistical comparison equality.

of course this quote is from you, and this is exactly as predicted in my previous post.this seems to happen often...that when i try to trace back what "you were told", it turns out the answer is "nobody"...you made it up.

it isn't just that mites transfer from hive to hive, it's that in aggregate they tend to flow from colonies of high numbers of mites to colonies of low numbers of mites. this is "leveling", not "becoming absolutely level"...there is a big difference.

when one "equalizes" a yard, does it mean that all hives are "equal" when you are done? no, you make things more equal than they were...stores and resources are transferred from colonies with surplus to those with inadequate resources....it is a process

again, can you cite someone (besides yourself) ever having said that mite counts will become level? i didn't think so.

bjorn, let's assume that i have a colony of bees, treat heavily with formic to knock down all the mites (several treatments) so that virtually none can be found.

if i place this colony in an apiary with mite infested colonies (the kind that will need treatment), how long will the mite free colony remain mite free? if this is springtime, will the bees still be mite free enough to not need treatment? where did the mites come from? would the results be different if the mitefree colony were isolated and not in close proximity to mite infested colonies?

err...looking through that thread (rather quickly...but it helped that that "mite" and "leveling" were highlighted), there was only one reference to claim that "leveling" results in "equality":

Quote

Accepting the fact that mites transfer is one thing. I do agree. Just not on a level claimed here to suggest that side by side hive will maintain equal, or statistical comparison equality.

of course this quote is from you, and this is exactly as predicted in my previous post.this seems to happen often...that when i try to trace back what "you were told", it turns out the answer is "nobody"...you made it up.

it isn't just that mites transfer from hive to hive, it's that in aggregate they tend to flow from colonies of high numbers of mites to colonies of low numbers of mites. this is "leveling", not "becoming absolutely level"...there is a big difference.

when one "equalizes" a yard, does it mean that all hives are "equal" when you are done? no, you make things more equal than they were...stores and resources are transferred from colonies with surplus to those with inadequate resources....it is a process

again, can you cite someone (besides yourself) ever having said that mite counts will become level? i didn't think so.

deknow

Wait...you said there were no claims. Now you suggest it was only stated once in the thread I posted.

Look up the rest of them, before you start throwing crap at me with your academia elitist crap.

I stated "leveling" was used over the years to discredit smallcell research. I backed it up with an example. now what? you want more. No. Quit wasting my time.

Anybody can look up all the threads on mite leveling.

And I also did not say everything else was claimed to be the same. I said "I'll assume", and played off the fact that when it came to mites, smallcell folks "created" that claim to discedit Berry's study. And hey, if you can just create that crap, why would it not be good for other things such as propolis. I guess you didn't see my parity.

I'm not answering to you, while I stated some rather broad brushes of actual discussions and groups of beekeepers, while you personally attack me.

I could care less what you say or how you are going to rationalize it.

Smallcell folks used mite leveling to discredit Berry's work. Period!

And I love it. I had said for years prior to the studies that I had been seeing the same crap, all the while folks like you kept dragging out one other person's claims (Dennis), as if it was the word of GOD!

And I'll continue to state the obvious, and laugh my butt off. I got much to use up, so I'll be harping on this every chance I get. :-D

bjorn, let's assume that i have a colony of bees, treat heavily with formic to knock down all the mites (several treatments) so that virtually none can be found.

if i place this colony in an apiary with mite infested colonies (the kind that will need treatment), how long will the mite free colony remain mite free? if this is springtime, will the bees still be mite free enough to not need treatment? where did the mites come from? would the results be different if the mitefree colony were isolated and not in close proximity to mite infested colonies?

deknow

Ah yes...back to reason.....

Read my comments closely and you will see I said bees drift. You will get infestations over time.

That is far from suggesting mites transfer at a rate that would indicate all hives would seemingly have the same mite counts (on average), as seen in the studies.

The counts are different within hives for several reasons. One would the the internal ability of each hive to detect, throw out infested larvae, grooming, brood cycling, etc. That is why in any yard, even factoring in drift, you see hives with different mite counts. And if you do mites counts on all the hives over the summer, those with low mite counts stay low, and those hives with higher counts, stay on the high side.

If you have a hive with little mite resistance next to a hive with excellent mite resistance, you will see different mite counts. That is why to assume that smallcell failed due to being in the same yard as other hives, and suggesting drift on a scale that would create "mite leveling" is absurd. Mite transfer over time, yes. Mite leveling, no.

Given the fact that smallcell was supposed to stop mite reproduction on a level much lower than bees on regular comb, the testing showed different. If the mites were not reproducing in the smallcell hives, and they were reproducing in the regular cell hives, you should have seen a difference in mite counts. The test did not. And mite leveling was a very weak attempt to discredit Berry.

If the mites were not reproducing in the smallcell hives, and they were reproducing in the regular cell hives, you should have seen a difference in mite counts. The test did not. And mite leveling was a very weak attempt to discedit berry.

remember, all the bees were treated prior to the study, so mite counts in all hives were low to start with. the dynamics of this kind of build up would take some fancy math to describe how 2 colonies with artificially low mite counts would become infested if they had different rates of mite reproduction....especially over a short period of time.

there is nothing wrong with jennifer's research...except that she vastly overstates what her data indicates...nothing she has done can support the title of a paper called "Small-cell comb foundation does not impede Varroa mite population growth in honey bee colonies".

there is a lot to criticize in the study model (as it relates to the conclusion)...and it is a bit of a straw man argument. "the small cell folks" didn't brainwash you (or even tell you) that no matter the management practice, all that needed to change was the cell size.

we had a discussion with a university extension/researcher one day about this...he said, "you have to get it down to one thing"....then followed with, "but, what if it is more than one thing?"...and shrugged his shoulders. i don't think it's "one thing"...genetics, cell size, treatments, environment all play into things. no one has ever said it was just one thing...and if they did, you should have known better than to believe it.

You can nitpick all you want. Two other separate studies have come to the same findings.

And I'm shocked that YOU threw in some rather vague shoulder shrugging by some guy not even associated with the studies, after demanding a whole higher level of criteria by some average beekeepers here on this forum.

And yes, smallcell WAS the ONE thing that was promoted over and over. That is why I stood my ground for many years now. I never felt it solely smallcell. That I agree. It is more than that. And while nobody may stand on that one point any longer, it is a side step away in that they suggest if your bees are on large cell (or anything not smallcell) they will die. Subtle point. But the same message. One of the key points of Dennis' site was his placing bees back on large cell and them dying. that point alone has been promoted and used as rationalization a million times over.

I have an article sitting somewhere (from about 8-9 years ago) that has the Lusby's stating that three things went into their success of beekeeping.

1) Smallcell foundation

2) Their unique feral bees to their area

3) Their unique high desert plateau environment.

When others started promoting all the benefits of smallcell and in particular of following the Lusby's, I asked her to explain how others would fair with smallcell missing two of the ingredients that they claimed were the reasons for their success. I had also asked some Rather detailed questions about a map that was used years ago explaining cell size in relationship to elevation. Basically the map had the idea that elevation was a determining factor in cell size. Making forcing bees on smallcell foundation about as unnatural as it comes.

Of course my questions went unanswered.

So I've been down this road many times. Smallcell folks have floated through time making stuff up as they go. Twisting facts over the years to justify their promotion of this or that. Quickly forgetting what they said from year to year. That's what great about forums. You can go back and read what was said. :-D I know my stance, experience, and conclusions, have stood for 10 years. Smallcell, FGMO, and whatever else it has been.

...he will claim he is too busy to look up all the times he was told this, that obviously it is what everyone is saying, and perhaps cite something from dennis murals (beewrangler's) web site that doesn't really support his claim (and although Dennis is certainly relevant and pokes his head out from time to time, he is hardly "part of the small cell crowd", certainly not a visible part), and probably tell us all that the term "mite leveling" means that all mites should be equal, not that it refers to the tendancy of mites to drift from colonies of high levels to colonies of lower levels to some extent.

Quote

Wait...you said there were no claims. Now you suggest it was only stated once in the thread I posted.

yes, it was stated once...by you. no one has made the claim that the number of mites would be equal except for you as a straw man argument.

Quote

Look up the rest of them, before you start throwing crap at me with your academia elitist crap.

i do have a college degree...in music. i don't know where you get the idea that i'm some academic type....we throw a conference where all the speakers are respected beekeepers running their own businesses. we run our own business. we hope to have some select researchers at the 2011 conference. i have no ties to any universities or institutions of any kind.

Quote

I stated "leveling" was used over the years to discredit smallcell research. I backed it up with an example. now what? you want more. No. Quit wasting my time.

what you said was that "mite leveling" should result in equal numbers of mites between hives. no one but you has made this claim.

Quote

Anybody can look up all the threads on mite leveling.

...and when you did just that, it is clear that you are making things up and simply referencing yourself.

Quote

I'm not answering to you, while I stated some rather broad brushes of actual discussions and groups of beekeepers, while you personally attack me.

because you are making things up. if you are mad at dennis, yell at him.

Quote

Smallcell folks used mite leveling to discredit Berry's work. Period!

because she used a model that hasn't proven successful. those that have found success in SC (for whatever reason) haven't kept them alongside LC colonies. if the reason for doing this research is because there is some anecdotal success, then the goal of the researcher is to replicate closely what the successful models are doing. adding the LC hives right next door is adding a lot of variables (as would having them in separate yards).

Quote

And I love it. I had said for years prior to the studies that I had been seeing the same crap, all the while folks like you kept dragging out one other person's claims (Dennis), as if it was the word of GOD!

i loved dennis's 3D TBH that he did in sketchup...other than that, i don't think i've ever cited him, and he rarely (if ever) comes up on these forums...except when you bring him up. he does post from time to time.